Talk:Tower of Babel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tower of Babylon Myth[edit]

What proof does anyone have that the Tower of Babylon is a myth? To call it a myth because it comes from the Christian Bible is absolutely ridiculous. 2600:100C:B057:A8DA:AD11:87BC:571:8CBD (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing the story involves a deity speaking to humans. So the story cannot be explained as a factual account based upon our knowledge of the physical universe. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish mythology has very little to do with history. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course many religious fundamentalists believe the story is literally true, but that pretty much proves the point. They tend to be either very ignorant people incapable of grasping the logical inconsistencies of such a belief, or else frauds who pretend to believe it to exploit the simpletons. Carlstak (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Christian fundamentalism adheres to biblical literalism, the entire movement is based on pseudohistory and opposition to the scientific method. Their superstitious mindset is not a reliable source about human history. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Points can be made without public insults and condescension, yes? LovelyLillith (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LovelyLillith That was three months ago and factual, no insulting or condescending. And the IP never even bothered to response, that was their only edit. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“They tend to be either very ignorant people…or else frauds” is both insulting and condescending. No matter when it was said, we can do better than that. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From dictionary.com: "myth - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature." Are you seriously saying that the Tower of Babel narrative does not fit the definition? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct presentation would be biblical account not myth. This allows the reader to understand the origins and make their own presumptions. If this was really about calling all supernatural events "myths" then why is this label not placed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon wikis account of Muhammad splitting the moon and many other fantastical religious accounts claimed throughout wiki? Please let us do away with the term myth or add it to every account that cannot be proven scientifically and do away with the hypocrisy. Jonnywes (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's an academic term. If you want to add it to other articles, feel free as long as you can source it. Doug Weller talk 13:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonnywes I second your proposal to change the wording to biblical account. Myth is a very loaded term and is a value judgment. It presupposes Christianity as a whole is a myth, which is an unprovable conclusion. For neutrality, "biblical account" or something in the same vein is preferred and has precedent. CandleinDarkness (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would we then have to change the titles of, say, Hindu mythology, Jewish mythology, Islamic mythology, Buddhist mythology, or Mythologies of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas? Dumuzid (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your words not ours. Literalism is not actually a specific requirement of most faiths. On the contrary, ancient peoples had no problem with having diverse diverging mythologies. They were literary traditions. Hence the litany of differing origin stories of many Greek mythological figures. If one wants to be really critical from a literary perspective, the Tower of Babel is a heavily plagiarized tale derived from Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta; more leniently, it's a novel re-interpretation of a classic. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hence the litany of differing origin stories of many Greek mythological figures." It is also why there were two different myths about the death of Goliath, and two entirely different myths about the Nativity of Jesus. The Bible is a rich source about ancient myths and folklore. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think making edits despite others objections here is the best idea, changing things to your own preferences despite the sources could provoke an edit war 2001:8003:34A3:800:8879:55D1:CD0E:B2C2 (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't definitely prove it's a myth, than you have to remove that statement period. Are you about accuracy or bias? That's the real question here, do you just allow your beliefs to filter through without proof, yet when something contradicts your system of faith, you judge by a different standard??! Either provide REAL PROOF its a myth, or change the phrase. You lose complete credibility with this stuff. Just like your fluff piece of Margaret Sanger, ignoring her own writings in order to turn her into a fantasy. 74.211.95.115 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023[edit]

I would like to change the information on the Tower of Babel to a more Christian perspective. The Tower of Babel is NOT a myth or a parable. Thank you very much for reading this, I hope that my request is answered. Rxy1768 (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. WanderingMorpheme 17:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quote not verified in body[edit]

“ While the archaeological record is incompatible with this identification, many scholars believe that the biblical story was inspired by Etemenanki.”

The archaeological incompatibility is not verified in the body of the article. I request this sentence is simply removed. Would there be consensus on this? IncandescentBliss (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add citations and represent multiple schools of thought[edit]

“Biblical scholars see the Book of Genesis as mythological and not as a historical account of events[25]” is a vast generalization with one citation. This is either sloppy or censorious. 69.130.9.115 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the moment, that one citation is more than you have provided. Reliable sources would assist your cause. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protected Edit Request on 4/14/2024[edit]

The Popular Culture section could be updated with Supernatural, s06e20, in which Castiel references the Tower of Babel.

"I remember the Tower of Babel, all 37 feet of it, which I suppose was impressive at the time. And when it fell, they held divine wrath. But c'mon, dried dung can only be stacked so high." YshtolaRhul (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tower_of_Babel&oldid=1218973316"